Navarro v. Wells Fargo dismissed

Wells Fargo prevails over Navarro et al., in their motion to dismiss. (I don’t bury the lede.)

Even though the District of Minnesota was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s complaints, it found along similar lines as the District of New Jersey did in Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson.

The court found that Navarro, et al., lacked standing because:
• the injury was speculative because Wells Fargo had the right to set contributions.
• the harm was not redressable because the plaintiffs could not even get equitable relief as they were no longer participating in the plan.

Does this stop the case? Perhaps. Like in Lewandowski, Navarro has leave to amend if there is a way to establish concrete, specific, redressable harm.

Does this stop all of these cases? Unlikely. Each case merely better defines the facts and pleadings necessary to survive a standing challenge. Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll see lots of non-lawyers saying that PBM cases are non-starters over the next few days. That would be an over reading to a procedural, not merits judgment.

Importantly, the plaintiff’s bar probably needs to teach more in their pleadings if they wish to survive, and could use an insider to show the direct link between claims and contributions for an airtight case. The reality is that most judges and clerks never worked on an employee benefits plan, and don't have a familiarity with the processes and norms. Lawyers will have to find the tightest fit to standing they can, and then expand from there.

Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson has been refiled with clarification that Lewandowski was on COBRA (so the damage is concrete and redressable) and adding another participant (a retiree who will suffer continuing harm if the plan is mismanaged).

One of these will survive a standing challenge at some point (maybe Lewandowski given the COBRA circumstances), and at that point, we'll be off to the races. Even then, a good process will likely protect most employers.

For now, ERISA Plan Sponsors should take these as shots across the bow and ensure that they're taking proactive measures to avoid ending up on the wrong side of the "v."

What are those steps?

• Form and educate your Fiduciary Committee.
•Understand your contracts and plans.
•Regularly Benchmark against industry standards and norms.
•Memorialize your articulable basis for key decisions.
•Engage independent experts where appropriate.

And finally — document everything.

Courts may ultimately defer to a prudent process, not a perfect outcome. But when the process is undocumented or inconsistent, it opens the door to risk — especially once one of these cases makes it past the standing hurdle.

So yes, Wells Fargo lives to fight another day. But tomorrow is another day. For Plan Sponsors, this ruling is not a reason to disengage — it’s a reminder to double down on process, transparency, and governance.

We’re still in the early innings.